SYDNEY, Australia -- It is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obamas proposals on gun control. I wouldnt presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.

I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country  where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere  sent a member of my coalition to Parliament.

Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldnt be easy.

Our challenges were different from Americas. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isnt as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than Americas over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)

This is potentially a blueprint for anti-gun people in the Republican Party. I believe we need to watch this carefully.

Liberal Democrats and anti-gun Republicans will be looking for ways to divide conservatives on guns, and examples from other countries probably need to be used since most of the high-profile anti-gun Republicans (Bloomburg, for example) have been driven out of the GOP, or at least out of politically relevant leadership positions.

The comment by the author at the end of my excerpt that he doesn't think there should be Bill of Rights because it restricts legislative power is a particularly blunt warning — that is why we need a written constitution (unlike Britain) and a written Bill of Rights that cannot be amended without supermajorities of the Congress and the states.

I believe there is a great distinction between people seeking refuge from oppression and fighting for their freedom as our ancestors did and people being relocated from their country of origin to another place...........if that makes any sense.

I dont know possessed the estimable Aussies to obey your fascistic command but I know I speak for more than a few million Americans when I tell you or any other gungrabber to pound sand.

The Australians to a large degree are still "Good Queen's Men" they still have the "subject" mentality and never had anything like a 2nd amendment. (Their Quasi-Independence for Britain was more a friendly handshake than a Revolutionary War) That being said, the dirty little secret is Australia is essentially still a VAST wilderness with little law enforcement and less that half the estimated guns out there were ever turned in and there are still plenty floating around in the rural areas away from the major population centers.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.